Minutes 06/12/1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 12, 1973 (7) "AN ORDIN~qCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961, BY AMENDING SECTION 19-84 THEREOF PERTAINING TO UNLAWFUL USE OF CERTAIN NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES OR CHEMICALS." On motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr~ Johnson, the ordinance was first reading, and by the following vote: Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes Nays: No~ approved on ?3-206 - Public Hearing on 1973-74 Budget and the Amusement Tax Ordinance (Bingo) was held: The following letter from the Municipal Finance Commission was read: (Item 73-239) the budget made its report to the Municipal Finance Commission meeting on May 9, 1973. After much discussion at that meeting May 16, 1973, the following is submitted: "the sub-committee on at its regularly scheduled and a special mee%ing held In~ the oFinion of your Commission, a sincere attempt has been made to meet the needs and demands of our citizens. Unfortunately,=the constraints of financial ability in our City always causes a refinement in degrees of needs. In matfhing the most severe needs with available revenue, it has become necessary to reduce costs of our City departments by nearly a million dollars, and the schools budget by a nearly like amount. Additionally, certain specific items have been recommended by the Manager for inclusJ in the operating budget, which would increase the same by about $640,000.00., a copy of which ~R~tached hereto marked Exhibit A. You will observe that Exhibit A embraces re- sponses to special requests to the Commission for special consideration. It does not re- spond to the request for assistance in renovation of the Court House at High and Court Streets. In order to respond to these special needs, your Commission recommends as follows: Use additional Revenue Sharing funds to the extent ~of $639,547.00, which leaves a possible deficit of S841,940.00. Additional allocations of un- used Revenue Sharing of approximately $1.1 Million be Referred until such time as priorities can be established. The foregoing deficit, upon crease of water rates under follows: our recommendation, would be funded by an in- a formula devised by independent engineers as Uniform rate of 50¢ per 1000 gallons ($37.54/100 cu.ft.) Estimated revenue increase of $477,650.00 per year. This is based on a uniform rate for customers in and outside of Portsmouth and Suffolk. This assumes Nansemond and Chesapeake customers will pay 1 1/2 ~imes Portsmouth and Suffolk rate. Chesapeake City Manager is recommending a uniform ra~e of 72¢/1000 gallons for all water used according to a recent newspaFer article. This still results in a decrease in revenue from these cus- tomers for water charges. Consider discontinuing the minimum charge for water used. This would affect minimum users, which includes approximately 40% of our customers. The minimum bill now is $1.32 per month plus-the 50z per month meter "ready to serve" charge, or $1.82 per month. With the increased ready to serve charge, min~mumu~ould be S1.00 per month, the bill ~ould be $1.75 per month. The increased revenue projected of $262,350.00 at the proposed rate is based on no minimum water charge. Increase annual fire hydrant charge to $65.00 per year per hydrant The est~m&ted increase ~n revenue would 6e $32,000.00 per year. This assumes that Nansemond is granted this $65.00 rate also. Our contract with Chesapeake commits us to the current SS0.00 rate for 18 fire hydrants in Chesapeake, but this is insignificant compared with the total number hydrants. Philosophically, the foregoing are motivated by the desire to assure equitable re- lief to the small water consumer who has been obliged to pay a fixed sum in exchange for additional revenues from large water users who are in a better position to pay. It is recommended that provisions be made through the erection of water holding tanks or other feasible means, so that large water users may negotiate this additional operating cost. It is the view of your gommission, that under present local revam~w from general property tax and other local taxes, as well as the present system of assistance from federal and state agencies, the operation costs of the City public schools be limited to 3S% thereof. With this broad guideline, those resoonsible for the administration of public education will be able to plan the use of such funds in manners best suitable to provide the highest quality education. Coincidently, the enforced reduction ~f public education budget requests shares a comparative reduction of requests from other depart- ments.